Operation of Traffic Signal Systems in Oversaturated Conditions, Volume 2 – Final Report (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 119-278
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 119... ...
Chapter 3: Test Applications In Chapter 2, we presented the three primary areas of new research and development that were conducted during this project: • Development of quantitative measures for the severity of oversaturated conditions (queue length, TOSI, SOSI) • Development of a process for generating and analyzing timing plans for mitigating oversaturated conditions • Development of a tool for online application of mitigation strategies using TOSI and SOSI measurements to select alternative timing plans In this chapter we describe several test cases conducted as part of the project to validate the research theories listed above.
|
From page 120... ...
Table 11. Summary of test case attributes Test Case Config Number of Ints Spacing (ft)
|
From page 121... ...
Arterial Test Case: Application of the Multi-Objective Timing Plan Development and Evaluation Framework The Reston Parkway arterial network is located in Reston, VA between Herndon and Vienna near the entrance to the Dulles International Airport. The network is significantly oversaturated during peak periods.
|
From page 122... ...
Figure 58. Reston Parkway network Significant changes to the traffic patterns for both demand and directional distribution occur in the selected sub-network during the peak period.
|
From page 123... ...
Figure 59. Changes in traffic patterns in Reston Parkway at 3:30 P.M.
|
From page 124... ...
Figure 61. Changes in traffic patterns in Reston Parkway at 7:30 P.M.
|
From page 125... ...
Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 1 Figure 62. Critical route scenarios on the Reston Parkway network In addition, the volume profiles were adjusted to account for the delayed demand that might not have been able to enter the network due to oversaturated conditions, and therefore would not have been reflected in the system detector data.
|
From page 126... ...
Figure 63. Adjusted demand profile for Route AH to account for demand unrepresented in the system detector counts Illustration Using of Critical Routes to Determine Mitigation Strategies In this section we describe the use of critical routes to develop mitigation strategies.
|
From page 127... ...
Figure 64. Problematic Scenario 5: critical movements and diagnosis In this scenario the oversaturated approach northbound on the Parkway at Sunset Hill Road for left-turn vehicles causes secondary congestion at the two upstream intersections at the eastbound and westbound toll road ramps.
|
From page 128... ...
Extent Duration Causation Recurrence Symptoms Movement Situational Signal Timing Recurrent Starvation Approach Intermittent Geometrics Non-Recurrent Spillback Intersection Persistent Other modes Storage Blocking Route Prolonged Demand Cross Blocking One-way arterial Planned Events Two-way arterial Unplanned Events Interchange Grid Network Figure 65. Key attributes of Scenario 5 Based on observation of the critical routes in this scenario, we first determine that one of two different canonical operational strategies will be applied in this test case, either a metering strategy for the northbound critical routes or a phase reservice strategy for the northbound left turn at Sunset Hill Road.
|
From page 129... ...
(b) Metering of northbound traffic at the Dulles eastbound ramp intersection Figure 66.
|
From page 130... ...
Figure 67. Storage capacity of the link used for metering in the Reston Parkway network The timing plan generation framework presented in Chapter 2 was used to generate timing plan parameters for the proposed control strategies.
|
From page 131... ...
Table 12. Maximum cycle length before spillback occurs on critical network links Network Links Length Storage Max C Max C From To Ft Veh/lane (Lieberman)
|
From page 132... ...
Table 14. Shockwave Modeling Parameters Parameters Value Discharge rate (veh/hr/ln)
|
From page 133... ...
Figure 68. Split-offset calculation procedure Figure 69.
|
From page 134... ...
Figure 70. Oversaturation offsets for both southbound and northbound critical routes Figure 71.
|
From page 135... ...
Simulation Experiment Timings plans were designed for six volume and critical routing scenarios (denoted scenarios 1, 2, 3, and so on)
|
From page 136... ...
Table 16. Control strategy combinations with metering or phase reservice Simulation Results and Evaluation The simulation output results were collected every 15 minutes of the simulation time including total system and link-by-link delay, total number of stops, and total system throughput measured by the total number of vehicles leaving the network during the time period.
|
From page 137... ...
in the simulation (the loading period) and light colors represent the end of the simulation time (recovery period)
|
From page 138... ...
Figure 72. Illustration example of the Pareto front for Scenario 5: metering strategy Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 136
|
From page 139... ...
Pareto Front Analysis In this section we present the results of the Pareto front analysis for the 25 strategies (12 combinations of cycle time and offsets with either phase reservice or metering plus the baseline timing plan) on the six critical route scenarios.
|
From page 140... ...
Scenario 5 Results: Pareto Front Ti m e (2 :0 08: 30 )
|
From page 141... ...
Short cycles @ (2:30- 30:00)
|
From page 142... ...
Table 17. Scenario 5: total improvement over the baseline strategy The following figures illustrate the dominant timing plan during each 15-minute period of the scenario for each of the control objectives based on the average performance on each objective over the five simulation runs.
|
From page 143... ...
Figure 75. Scenario 5: optimal control strategies for each 15-minute period Finally the mitigation strategies were evaluated for each 15-minute interval with respect to the timing plan implemented in the real world.
|
From page 144... ...
Figure 76. Scenario 5: Example performance profiles of a mitigation strategy versus the baseline timing plan Results for the five other critical route scenarios are listed below for further illustration of the performance comparisons between the mitigations.
|
From page 145... ...
Scenario 1 Results The mitigation strategies in this scenario were optimized for just two critical routes: northbound and southbound on Reston Parkway. Metering and phase reservice were not applied at Sunset Hill because those turning routes were not considered critical in this scenario.
|
From page 146... ...
Table 18. Scenario 1: total improvement over the baseline strategy Strategy cycle Delay Stops Throughput 1 10 0 0.39 0.26 -0.04 2 0.22 0.2 -0.04 3 0.41 0.2 -0.04 4 0.39 0.25 -0.04 5 14 0 0.16 0.2 0.13 6 0.16 0.19 0.12 7 0.22 0.25 0.11 8 0.21 0.23 0.11 9 18 0 0.06 0.16 0.08 10 0.06 0.16 0.08 11 0.03 0.13 0.08 12 -0.07 0 0.12 Figure 78.
|
From page 147... ...
Scenario 2 Results The mitigation strategies in this scenario were optimized for just one critical route: southbound on Reston Parkway. Metering and phase reservice were not applied at Sunset Hill because those turning routes were not considered critical.
|
From page 148... ...
Table 19. Scenario 2: total % improvement over the baseline plan Strategy Cycle Delay Stops Throughput 1 10 0 0.35 0.45 0.07 2 0.35 0.45 0.07 3 0.34 0.42 0.08 4 0.33 0.42 0.06 5 14 0 0.06 0.07 0.1 6 0.17 0.22 0.1 7 0.13 0.15 0.11 8 0.14 0.18 0.09 9 18 0 -0.18 -0.25 0.11 10 -0.15 -0.19 0.08 11 -0.24 -0.29 0.06 12 -0.24 -0.29 0.06 Figure 81.
|
From page 149... ...
Scenario 3 Results The mitigation strategies in this scenario were optimized for just one critical route: northbound on Reston Parkway. Metering and phase reservice were not applied at Sunset Hill because those turning routes were not considered critical in this scenario.
|
From page 150... ...
Table 20. Scenario 3: total % improvement over baseline plan Figure 84.
|
From page 151... ...
Scenario 4 Results The mitigation strategies in this scenario were optimized for five critical routes: northbound and southbound on Reston Parkway, eastbound and westbound at Sunset Hill Road, and the left turn from Sunset Hill Road on to the toll road. Metering and phase reservice were not applied at Sunset Hill because those turning routes were not considered critical.
|
From page 152... ...
Routing Scenario 4 findings: Long cycles with min/ mid offset maximize throughput Short cycles minimize delay during both loading and recovery regimes During the processing regime, throughput maximization is the optimal control objective During the loading and recovery regimes, delay minimization is the optimal control objective Throughput maximization strategies reduce delay by12% and increase throughput by 11% Delay minimization strategies reduce delay by 45% , and increase throughput by 8% Table 21. Scenario 4: total improvement % over baseline plan Figure 87.
|
From page 153... ...
Figure 88. Scenario 4: Strategy 8 improvement % by time for performance measures (delay, stop, and throughput)
|
From page 154... ...
Scenario 6 Results The mitigation strategies in this scenario were optimized for five critical routes: northbound and southbound on Reston Parkway, left and right turns from the westbound toll road off-ramp and the left turn from the eastbound toll road off-ramp on to northbound Reston Parkway. Metering and phase reservice were not applied at Sunset Hill Road because those turning routes were not considered critical.
|
From page 155... ...
Routing Scenario 6 findings: Short cycles dominate the optimal solutions of this routing scenario During the process phase, throughput maximization is the optimal control objective During recovery phases, optimal solutions consist of both control objectives (delay-min and throughput-max) Throughput maximization strategies reduce delay by 29% and increase throughput by 19% Delay minimization strategies reduce delay by 38% and increase throughput by 17% Table 22.
|
From page 156... ...
Figure 91. Scenario 6: Strategy 7 improvement % by time Lessons Learned and Guidance from the Reston Parkway Case Study The Reston Parkway case study was used to illustrate the process of developing timing plans for mitigating oversaturated conditions using the methodology developed in Chapter 2 and the evaluation of the performance of those plans on multiple performance measures.
|
From page 157... ...
During the network loading and processing regimes, optimal strategies maximized throughput. During the recovery regime optimal strategies minimized total delay.
|
From page 158... ...
Network Test Case: Application of the Multi-Objective Evaluation Process with Explicit Consideration of Operational Regimes In this section, we describe a second test case in which we applied the methodology for design of timing plans that consider oversaturated conditions. The network shown in Figure 92 is a good example of a combination of arterial and grid operations and the influence of freeway on- and off-ramp traffic on arterial operations in oversaturated conditions.
|
From page 159... ...
significant. Westheimer Road, on the north side of the sub-network shown below, is one of the most heavily traveled arterials in the region.
|
From page 160... ...
Figure 94. Skyline view of Uptown Houston About 42,000 residents live in the Houston Galleria's apartments, modern townhouses, and single-family homes and there is five million square feet of retail space.
|
From page 161... ...
Figure 95. Parking lot facilities in Post Oak Network During the P.M.
|
From page 162... ...
4- SB on Sage Road leads to US-59 EB and WB 5- SB on Post Oak Boulevard leads to US-59 EB and WB 6- EB on Richmond Avenue to I-610 NB Figure 96. Network exits and routes to the highways interchange ramps Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 160
|
From page 163... ...
Figure 97. Post Oak Ave./W Alabama Ave.; exit to I-610 southbound and US 59 ramps Figure 98.
|
From page 164... ...
System detector volumes were obtained for a large number of the approaches in the network from Harris County, TX. This data was analyzed to identify the critical routes in the network.
|
From page 165... ...
Figure 99. Critical routes for Scenario 1 Development of Arrival Demand Profiles on Critical Routes In this step, critical routes for the scenario were assigned the maximum volumes they can handle taking into account the background traffic (traffic on non-critical routes)
|
From page 166... ...
Figure 100. Volume profiles for critical routes in Scenario 1 Once the critical routes were established the corresponding critical movements throughout the network could be identified where critical routes use common links.
|
From page 167... ...
Scenario 2: Critical Routes Generated from Traffic Inside the Network In Scenario 2, traffic generated from inside the network (i.e., parking lots) that is leaving the network is considered to be the critical route flows.
|
From page 168... ...
Figure 102. Critical routes for Scenario 2 The volume profiles of outbound routes (illustrated in Figure 103)
|
From page 169... ...
In the next section, we discuss common issues of oversaturation in the network under both critical route assumptions. Following this discussion, we discuss the control strategies that were applied to each routing scenario, and the timing plans and parameters that were generated from applying the optimization methodology.
|
From page 170... ...
Figure 104. Symptoms of oversaturation in the Post Oak network Figure 105.
|
From page 171... ...
Since persistent, recurring spillback of left-turn bays was identified as one of the dominating factors influencing the operation during the peak period, it was essential to develop a control strategy that explicitly addresses this problem. The left-turn phase reservice strategy was chosen to provide the extra capacity to the left-turn movements.
|
From page 172... ...
Table 25. Control strategies applied in Scenario 1 Control Strategy Location Expected Improvement Operational Objective Left-turn phase Reservice WBL Richmond Ave.
|
From page 173... ...
Figure 106. Control strategies applied in Scenario 1 Scenario 1: Timing Plan Development Two strategies were generated based on the assumptions of Scenario 1 that routes through the network are the critical routes.
|
From page 174... ...
An optimization procedure was then conducted to identify the optimal timing plans and their optimal switching points to meet the assumed control objectives in each regime and duration constraints for each timing plan. Figures 107 and 108 illustrate the resulting schedules of timing plans and switching times between the plans in each strategy.
|
From page 175... ...
Table 26. Description of strategies Strategy No.
|
From page 176... ...
different seed numbers. Figure 109 shows a snapshot of the coded network.
|
From page 177... ...
Table 28. Performance evaluation of strategies on Scenario 1 Baseline Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Performance Measure Mean St.
|
From page 178... ...
Figure 111 and Figure 112 present the throughput performance of Strategy 1 and Strategy 2 at the intersection level. These Figures compare the throughput at each intersection for the strategy with the baseline over the peak period.
|
From page 179... ...
Figure 112. Intersection throughput improvement for Strategy 2 Figure 113 combines the information from the previous two figures on one display to compare the two strategies against each other.
|
From page 180... ...
Figure 113. Comparison of intersection throughput between the two strategies Network traffic loads (total vehicles in the system)
|
From page 181... ...
Strategy 2 shifted back to throughput maximization control while Strategy 1 shifted to throughput maximization control at 5:30 P.M. The different switch points for the two strategies were determined based on the optimization process described earlier.
|
From page 182... ...
Scenario 2: Critical Route Flows from Origins Inside the Network Control strategies for Scenario 2 were developed using the same methodology applied to Scenario 1, but considered different assumptions on the critical routes. In Scenario 1 we assumed that the critical routes began outside of the network and progressed through the network to external destinations.
|
From page 183... ...
Figure 115. Spatial illustration of control strategies for Scenario 2 Scenario 2: Development of Timing Plans The timing plans and TOD schedule for implementing the plans were generated using the same methodology followed for Scenario 1.
|
From page 184... ...
Figure 116. Min Delay-Queue Management-Max Throughput timing plan schedule Figure 117.
|
From page 185... ...
Table 31. Plan start times for each strategy Strategy No.
|
From page 186... ...
throughput. Maximizing throughput at the beginning of a scenario that evolves slowly may apply the preferential treatment to the critical routes a bit too soon, allowing more vehicles in the system, but storing more of those vehicles on side streets.
|
From page 187... ...
illustrates the importance of selecting the appropriate optimization objectives during each regime of the scenario. Figure 119.
|
From page 188... ...
Figure 120. Intersection throughput improvements for Strategy 2 on Scenario 2 Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 186
|
From page 189... ...
Figure 121. Comparison of throughput improvements between the two strategies Figure 122 compares the traffic loading over time during the scenario for the baseline and the two strategies.
|
From page 190... ...
Figure 122. Number of vehicles in the system for each strategy for Scenario 2 Table 34.
|
From page 191... ...
network's critical locations and the optimization procedure developed for determining feasible combinations of cycle, splits, and offsets described in Chapter 2. The optimization process was extended further to consider the selection of a sequence of timing plans and the associated switching times between the timing plans.
|
From page 192... ...
Using TOSI and SOSI Measures to Directly Calculate Green Time Adjustments In the previous section, we discussed a top-down approach for generating mitigation timing plans using an optimization methodology. This methodology is experimental and relatively complicated and could not be applied in practice without additional research and development effort.
|
From page 193... ...
adjustments of offsets and green splits. We first introduce the control variables and basic theory for applying TOSI and SOSI measures in order to mitigate oversaturation.
|
From page 194... ...
duration ,n ig and red duration ,n ir . Here cn is the cycle length for intersection n.
|
From page 195... ...
Distance Time #n #n+1 Distance Time Shockwave Trajectory .n ig∆ Shockwave Trajectory 1,n ir + 1,n ig + ,n ir ,n ig,n iO 1,n iO +1,n ir + 1,n ig + ,n ir ,n ig,n iO 1,n iO + a) Before Green Extension (TOSI > 0, SOSI=0)
|
From page 196... ...
Distance Time Shockwave Trajectory #n #n+1 1,n ir + 1,n ig + ,n ir ,n ig,n iO 1,n iO + .n ir∆ Distance Time Shockwave Trajectory 1,n ir + 1,n ig + ,n ir ,n ig,n iO 1,n iO + Vehicle Trajectory fv Vehicle Trajectory fv a) Before Red Extension (SOSI > 0, TOSI =0)
|
From page 197... ...
Distance Time Shockwave Trajectory #n Distance Time 1,n ir + 1,n ig + ,n ir ,n ig Shockwave Trajectory ,n iO 1,n iO + #n+1 1,n i r +∆ 1,n ir + 1,n ig + ,n ir ,n ig,n iO 1,n iO + Vehicle Trajectory fv Vehicle Trajectory fv a) Before Downstream Red Reduction (TOSI>0, SOSI >0)
|
From page 198... ...
Forward Process The forward process aims to eliminate both spillovers and overflow queues by reducing red time or increasing green time of oversaturated phases without considering the constraints from other phases at the intersection. The process is applied along the direction of flow and calculates the red and green time changes for each oversaturated phase on the route.
|
From page 199... ...
, 1, 1, 1, , 1, , , F F N i N i N i N i F F N i N i N i N i r r SOSI g g g TOSI g − − − − ∆ = ∆ − × ∆ = ∆ + × Eq. 57 Backward Process The forward process follows the traffic direction and adds extra green time ( , , F F n i n ig r∆ −∆ )
|
From page 200... ...
along the route.
|
From page 201... ...
Oversaturated Route Critical Intersection I Oversaturated Route Phase i Phase j Figure 129: Oversaturated route and critical intersection For two oversaturated routes that intersect, the available green time at intersection I ( , & a I i jg ) needs to be divided between phase i and j.
|
From page 202... ...
If , & , , a R R I i j I i I jg g g≥ + , then the available green time constraint at intersection I is satisfied. The backward process adjustment terms B ig∆ and B jg∆ are equal to B ig∆ and B jg∆ respectively, see Eq.
|
From page 203... ...
Table 35. Illustration of calculation procedure Intersection A Intersection B Phase Green Time 45s 40s Lost Time 8s 8s Phase Red Time 37s 42s Minimum Green 15s 15s Minimum Green – Conflicting phase 15s 15s Offset 0s 3s Upstream storage space 100 vehicles 25 vehicles Intersection A Cycle Green Time TOSI SOSI Overflow Queue Length (per lane)
|
From page 204... ...
Table 36. Illustration of calculations for green time modifications Intersection A Intersection B Average TOSI 0.33 0.18 Average SOSI 0.15 0 Average green time 49s 43s Intersection A Intersection B Forward Pass Delta-R 0s -(0.15)
|
From page 205... ...
between Winnetka and Rhode Island, queues spill back to the Rhode Island intersection creating large values of SOSI and TOSI. Signal timing plans for the intersections of Winnetka and Rhode Island are shown in Figure 131.
|
From page 206... ...
Figure 132. SOSI and TOSI values of Rhode Island westbound Based on the average SOSI and TOSI values, the FBP suggests increasing the green time of the downstream intersection at Winnetka by 10s.
|
From page 207... ...
Figure 134. TOSI values of Rhode Island westbound before and after the FBP Figure 135.
|
From page 208... ...
An Oversaturated Arterial The second test site, as shown in Figure 137, is an oversaturated arterial corridor of five intersections on Fair Oaks Avenue in the City of Pasadena, CA. The length of the corridor is 0.4 mile and the speed limit is 30 mph.
|
From page 209... ...
Table 37. Southbound average SOSI and TOSI values under original signal timings Inter.
|
From page 210... ...
Table 38. FBP calculation process Inter.
|
From page 211... ...
Table 40 summarizes the network performance under the two plans. With the FBP, the average number of stops has been reduced from 1.66 per vehicle to 1.31 per vehicle and the FBP plan increases the average speed 8.65%.
|
From page 212... ...
Table 40. Network performance comparison SYNCHRO FBP CHANGE (%)
|
From page 213... ...
Table 41. Comparison of throughput by route SYNCHRO FBP CHANGE (%)
|
From page 214... ...
The proposed procedure was applied for offline signal timing adjustment, but we envision that a similar process could be applied in an online, real-time feedback manner with appropriate interface to the signal controller or a signal control system. The approach at this time would be considered experimental in nature.
|
From page 215... ...
Online Application Test Case: Response to Incident at a Single Common Destination In the previous section, we presented a bottom-up heuristic procedure for processing TOSI and SOSI measurements into green time adjustments for an oversaturated route. This method was shown to be effective in improving performance on the oversaturated route in two test cases by adjusting the green time of the timing plans in an offline manner.
|
From page 216... ...
Figure 141. City of Windsor, ON arterial and freeway network Tunnel operations can be significantly affected when the Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
|
From page 217... ...
Figure 142. Intersections near the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel border crossing Recently, the Province and the City have designed signal timing strategies to manage the operation of the intersection when the queues are persistent and oversaturation persists.
|
From page 218... ...
Based on the status of the queue detectors, pedestrian indications, and other inputs, a number of mitigation actions are taken, as shown in the Table 42. This table is a truth table decision making device.
|
From page 219... ...
Scenario Modeling The baseline scenario for this test case consisted of creating an incident of one hour in duration caused by increased transaction time on the US side of the tunnel during the A.M. peak hour.
|
From page 220... ...
Figure 144. Baseline oversaturated scenario A dynamic map was created to illustrate the spatial and temporal aspects of the oversaturated scenario over time.
|
From page 221... ...
Table 44. Summary of mitigation strategies Mitigation Number Name Description 1 Original Mitigation Logic Omit phases and adjust green times at critical intersection 2 Expanded Mitigation Logic Omit phases and adjust green times at critical intersection 3 Dynamic Lane Assignment Allow double left-turns on critical eastbound route 4 Westbound and Northbound Metering Meter traffic upstream of critical intersection on non-critical routes 5 Eastbound Metering Meter traffic upstream of critical intersection on critical route 6 Westbound, Northbound and Eastbound Metering Meter traffic everywhere 7 Re-routing Re-route traffic around critical intersection to alternate entrance to store vehicles on longer route These mitigation strategies are summarized in the next section.
|
From page 222... ...
Figure 145. Detection points in the Windsor, ON traffic network From the original responsive logic presented in Table 44, we removed the consideration of pedestrian concerns and developed the following logic table based just on the status of the queue detectors.
|
From page 223... ...
A detection point was created in the Vissim model for each of the locations to be monitored for conditions as shown in Figure 145. For each action included in the table above, a coordination timing plan (Action Set Plan)
|
From page 225... ...
Expanded Incident Mitigation Logic The original mitigation logic was expanded to include consideration of queue detection on the eastbound approach of the Goyeau/Wyandotte intersection. Additional actions were also designed to increase the throughput of phases that do not enter the border crossing tunnel.
|
From page 226... ...
consecutive minutes. We set the "begin" threshold for each queue detector to 85%.
|
From page 231... ...
(j) Figure 147.
|
From page 232... ...
on side street movements at these intersections were set to max recall so that they would be serviced regardless of vehicle demand, to provide consistent green time on the main line as well as to attempt to manage queues by minimizing the amount of SOSI > 0 that occurs when the downstream queue has not begun to move, but the upstream light has turned green. Eastbound Metering For this mitigation strategy, offsets at the intersections west of the critical intersection were modified to create a metering effect at the critical intersection.
|
From page 233... ...
change, orange indicated slightly worse (t-test value < -2) , and red indicates significantly worse (t-test value < -4.4)
|
From page 234... ...
Table 47. Average delay per link 8:00 – 8:15 Segment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EB TH at PEL-WYAN 86.3 557.6 1714.3 94.2 119.8 635.4 62.3 WB TH at PEL-WYAN 41.2 42.8 36.6 40.2 33.7 38.0 12.8 NB TH at PEL-WYAN 114.4 115.8 384.1 92.4 116.0 199.8 80.3 EB TH at OUEL-WYAN 195.6 567.1 783.6 237.8 259.8 511.6 27.6 SB TH at OUEL-WYAN 100.2 46.2 26.7 48.2 40.1 27.6 16.7 WB TH at OUEL-WYAN 11.0 7.7 14.0 11.4 14.1 28.6 2.5 NB TH at OUEL-WYAN 121.1 129.1 634.6 273.6 157.6 142.5 32.2 NB TH at OUEL-WYAN upstrem of LT bay 54.6 11.4 682.3 257.5 85.2 126.8 35.6 NB LT at OUEL-WYAN 60.5 65.8 50.6 57.1 53.1 41.8 20.7 WB TH at GOY-WYAN 18.4 18.1 93.5 12.7 16.5 19.2 3.6 WB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 596.9 1079.6 2038.1 1008.5 859.8 1478.3 64.0 WB LT at GOY-WYAN 470.3 741.6 1181.4 835.9 740.7 1088.5 69.8 SB TH at GOY-WYAN 78.5 3.3 8.6 3.3 3.5 5.4 4.8 SB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 102.5 286.0 750.0 208.4 119.4 789.2 248.2 SB LT at GOY-WYAN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Tunnel entrance RT lane 294.1 318.1 371.5 234.7 240.7 240.3 13.4 Tunnle entrance upstream from RT bay 21.2 46.5 152.5 8.5 6.0 32.8 1.1 Just past tunnel entrance on GOY 0.5 0.6 259.1 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.1 WB RT at GOY-WYAN 183.8 200.5 292.5 286.6 232.7 301.9 14.3 WB TH at GOY-WYAN 45.3 68.1 100.0 24.5 31.7 92.0 11.8 WB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 124.1 180.9 303.5 262.4 161.8 275.8 21.8 WB LT at GOY-WYAN 37.3 67.9 27.2 28.6 32.6 46.6 10.1 NB TH at GOY-WYAN 3710.5 1107.5 2023.5 1260.1 1125.3 1393.7 142.0 EB TH at WIND-WYAN 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.5 0.9 6.9 0.5 SB TH at WIND-WYAN 82.7 104.1 105.7 117.2 103.8 127.1 46.5 WB RT at WIND-WYAN 0.8 1.7 3.5 2.8 0.9 2.6 0.4 WB TH at WIND-WYAN 105.7 87.7 117.6 155.2 103.1 130.6 7.5 WB TH at WIND-WYAN upstream of RT bay 151.5 213.4 359.5 266.2 194.5 292.9 22.9 NB TH at WIND-WYAN 85.2 99.4 95.7 143.8 162.1 154.6 48.8 EB TH at MCD-WYAN 9.5 8.7 9.2 7.0 9.5 6.3 2.8 SB TH at MCD-WYAN 48.5 51.2 64.2 48.9 50.7 60.0 19.2 SB TH at MCD-WYAN upstream of RT bay 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 WB TH at MCD-WYAN 227.8 662.6 2383.7 913.7 910.8 1198.6 153.3 NB TH at MCD-WYAN 30.7 29.5 33.2 29.8 28.9 30.4 9.8 NB TH at MCD-WYAN upstream of LT bay 69.6 59.7 124.9 44.4 47.6 48.0 40.5 NB LT at MCD-WYAN 139.8 104.7 182.9 109.2 84.3 143.8 41.5 EB TH at GOY-TUC 733.6 110.5 385.3 106.1 90.7 81.8 61.3 SB TH at GOY-TUC 12.1 13.0 11.2 13.1 16.2 13.8 4.0 WB TH at GOY-TUC 1767.6 234.4 393.7 248.7 135.6 143.7 113.9 NB TH at GOY-TUC 1693.7 400.9 1149.5 447.5 391.6 630.4 91.8 EB TH at GOY-PARK 60.9 61.1 65.8 61.1 61.1 60.9 19.1 EB TH at GOY-PARK upstream of LT bay 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.4 1.3 EB RT at GOY-PARK 82.0 82.1 80.7 80.7 80.7 80.7 28.3 SB TH at GOY-PARK 13.9 14.3 15.7 14.8 14.7 13.9 21.3 WB TH at GOY-PARK 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.3 30.4 30.4 12.1 NB TH at GOY-PARK 7.7 9.2 7.2 10.0 7.4 7.6 2.7 NB TH at OUEL-PARK 114.2 212.4 129.8 134.9 125.3 161.7 71.1 NB RT at OUEL-PARK 125.8 118.5 129.8 119.6 81.2 81.1 29.2 EB RT at OUEL-PARK 85.6 85.8 85.1 85.6 85.9 86.7 30.9 SB TH at OUEL-PARK 125.7 121.8 126.0 128.4 128.1 126.1 42.5 WB RT at OUEL-PARK 32.6 34.1 31.6 32.4 32.5 32.6 12.2 WB TH at OUEL-PARK 44.9 45.6 43.6 45.2 45.0 45.5 11.1 WB LT at OUEL-PARK 33.4 33.5 32.6 33.4 33.4 33.4 11.1 NB TH at OUEL-UNIV 29.0 27.3 33.6 32.5 30.9 23.2 9.5 NB TH at OUEL-UNIV upstream of LT bay 14.8 13.7 13.0 17.0 16.8 14.6 6.0 NB LT at OUEL-UNIV 36.4 32.3 35.1 33.6 36.3 33.4 11.8 EB TH at OUEL-UNIV 25.6 25.8 22.5 23.5 23.3 26.9 8.7 SB TH at OUEL-UNIV 49.6 50.4 58.5 53.2 51.2 45.5 17.6 SB TH at OUEL-UNIV upstream of LT bay 7.9 7.5 58.5 9.2 8.0 6.7 2.9 SB LT at OUEL-UNIV 53.6 58.8 59.4 54.6 64.2 57.8 20.9 EB TH at GOY-UNIV 11.0 12.2 11.9 12.8 14.3 12.5 11.9 SB TH at GOY-UNIV 68.0 66.9 70.7 68.2 67.5 68.8 35.9 WB TH at GOY-UNIV 11.0 11.9 19.6 11.1 11.0 10.8 6.2 NB TH at GOY-UNIV 14.4 13.8 17.0 17.5 16.6 15.5 5.7 To tunnel From WEST 3425.1 5381.2 7341.6 5009.4 4887.4 5982.1 531.2 Through tunnel 6206.3 6171.4 6127.8 6125.3 6132.5 6170.2 854.5 To tunnel from East 2669.5 3797.0 5536.4 3970.8 3703.5 4188.5 348.8 To tunnel from South 5425.6 3697.6 5044.2 3877.1 3869.5 4129.7 421.3 Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 232
|
From page 235... ...
Figure 148. Performance summary 8:00 – 8:15 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N um be r o f S eg m en ts Performance Summary of Different Mitigations 8:00 - 8:15 Significantly Better Slightly Better No Difference Slightly Worse Significantly Worse Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 233
|
From page 236... ...
Table 48. Average delay per link 8:15 – 8:30 Segment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EB TH at PEL-WYAN 1192.3 5199.3 2528.8 5513.5 4123.4 4924.9 1417.5 WB TH at PEL-WYAN 36.1 33.6 27.3 29.1 20.1 18.1 32.3 NB TH at PEL-WYAN 207.9 1411.3 1435.1 515.8 1147.3 1602.3 862.1 EB TH at OUEL-WYAN 692.9 2213.3 1536.1 1988.7 1993.7 2052.1 665.5 SB TH at OUEL-WYAN 41.6 38.0 72.6 141.9 25.8 27.2 29.5 WB TH at OUEL-WYAN 18.1 14.9 7.7 25.0 17.2 15.1 9.9 NB TH at OUEL-WYAN 281.7 865.4 833.1 522.9 733.4 909.3 170.5 NB TH at OUEL-WYAN upstrem of LT bay 100.4 914.5 1661.2 802.2 1172.6 997.4 691.2 NB LT at OUEL-WYAN 38.8 34.7 17.6 25.6 33.7 33.2 36.2 WB TH at GOY-WYAN 2.1 1.0 143.9 2.8 15.9 0.9 11.3 WB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 990.9 2756.7 1925.2 2553.4 2156.4 3215.2 630.0 WB LT at GOY-WYAN 413.0 1002.3 1449.0 1155.6 1084.4 1383.4 677.7 SB TH at GOY-WYAN 95.2 8.7 9.1 10.3 7.6 9.9 8.8 SB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 1100.1 1081.4 568.1 984.2 1207.0 898.8 1087.0 SB LT at GOY-WYAN 318.8 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 Tunnel entrance RT lane 243.0 315.3 558.8 411.1 289.0 332.3 302.2 Tunnle entrance upstream from RT bay 26.7 8.4 124.0 7.3 45.4 36.8 5.8 Just past tunnel entrance on GOY 0.7 0.5 201.5 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.5 WB RT at GOY-WYAN 155.8 447.3 270.2 499.1 586.1 762.9 301.9 WB TH at GOY-WYAN 16.0 48.9 30.1 96.6 38.4 42.1 94.6 WB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 160.6 710.1 453.5 540.9 810.0 653.3 413.2 WB LT at GOY-WYAN 13.4 30.3 30.1 45.1 22.5 11.9 76.3 NB TH at GOY-WYAN 808.8 1637.6 1785.9 2035.7 2101.0 1723.9 1664.9 EB TH at WIND-WYAN 3.4 5.5 0.4 3.4 2.1 2.2 2.2 SB TH at WIND-WYAN 104.4 609.5 463.9 500.7 382.9 652.3 458.1 WB RT at WIND-WYAN 3.0 2.0 0.3 2.7 1.8 2.0 0.4 WB TH at WIND-WYAN 74.8 408.2 248.9 339.9 429.0 425.6 172.4 WB TH at WIND-WYAN upstream of RT bay 252.7 1256.1 652.8 1121.0 1197.1 816.2 490.1 NB TH at WIND-WYAN 102.4 929.2 425.6 771.3 1333.1 520.5 560.7 EB TH at MCD-WYAN 9.0 8.4 8.8 0.6 8.5 0.4 7.9 SB TH at MCD-WYAN 51.1 119.8 96.9 81.4 71.8 89.9 119.6 SB TH at MCD-WYAN upstream of RT bay 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 WB TH at MCD-WYAN 922.1 4042.9 3479.5 3533.9 3804.2 4136.2 3087.7 NB TH at MCD-WYAN 30.3 23.1 22.6 21.0 29.3 19.5 26.8 NB TH at MCD-WYAN upstream of LT bay 56.2 639.7 1099.5 748.6 858.5 619.5 899.1 NB LT at MCD-WYAN 124.4 568.0 656.3 609.3 501.9 479.1 587.6 EB TH at GOY-TUC 2577.3 475.3 2215.5 454.0 456.2 522.0 602.2 SB TH at GOY-TUC 19.7 12.2 18.2 18.2 15.1 23.5 14.2 WB TH at GOY-TUC 3095.3 1510.2 1586.0 1186.4 1029.3 948.1 1261.7 NB TH at GOY-TUC 1567.0 1682.9 2262.9 2340.9 2627.1 1881.6 1803.1 EB TH at GOY-PARK 49.0 52.1 62.3 50.6 51.6 53.0 54.4 EB TH at GOY-PARK upstream of LT bay 82.9 3.9 3.0 72.8 15.3 3.0 3.2 EB RT at GOY-PARK 124.2 96.7 108.1 165.3 107.7 81.9 91.8 SB TH at GOY-PARK 84.1 162.0 183.1 131.5 119.7 336.4 240.2 WB TH at GOY-PARK 61.6 32.5 38.8 32.7 32.6 37.6 38.1 NB TH at GOY-PARK 19.4 9.2 5.4 5.4 10.6 6.5 6.7 NB TH at OUEL-PARK 336.3 134.7 143.6 118.7 127.5 157.2 256.2 NB RT at OUEL-PARK 86.3 66.2 66.6 60.9 92.2 90.0 88.5 EB RT at OUEL-PARK 94.4 93.7 90.1 92.6 93.5 92.1 93.2 SB TH at OUEL-PARK 119.0 122.7 120.0 120.9 119.8 127.7 122.3 WB RT at OUEL-PARK 39.9 38.1 39.9 39.4 39.6 38.9 39.5 WB TH at OUEL-PARK 33.1 32.0 30.8 32.0 31.9 33.2 31.7 WB LT at OUEL-PARK 31.7 30.9 31.9 31.4 31.8 30.9 31.7 NB TH at OUEL-UNIV 19.7 32.3 47.2 33.6 32.0 47.4 34.7 NB TH at OUEL-UNIV upstream of LT bay 11.5 11.0 15.6 13.1 17.2 14.6 14.1 NB LT at OUEL-UNIV 22.4 51.4 51.3 50.5 41.2 46.9 37.6 EB TH at OUEL-UNIV 31.6 25.2 24.3 25.1 24.6 26.8 27.0 SB TH at OUEL-UNIV 49.6 59.0 61.3 57.1 57.3 59.5 59.8 SB TH at OUEL-UNIV upstream of LT bay 8.6 12.1 61.3 12.1 11.5 11.2 11.9 SB LT at OUEL-UNIV 47.3 57.2 52.1 54.7 53.9 67.4 54.1 EB TH at GOY-UNIV 44.3 24.9 89.6 40.2 10.2 123.2 31.8 SB TH at GOY-UNIV 141.2 147.5 314.7 104.2 138.8 280.5 147.3 WB TH at GOY-UNIV 77.5 87.1 116.0 65.1 33.9 127.2 43.6 NB TH at GOY-UNIV 17.0 16.9 20.3 15.7 16.1 11.5 13.6 To tunnel From WEST 3871.0 5692.8 4588.2 6193.8 7176.3 5751.1 3898.8 Through tunnel 4570.9 4522.4 4448.5 4581.6 4690.5 4546.4 4543.6 To tunnel from East 2951.4 5065.2 3478.4 4294.2 4079.5 3245.9 4229.3 To tunnel from South 1949.7 3888.0 4243.8 4823.9 4660.9 4274.8 4434.4 Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 234
|
From page 237... ...
Figure 149. Performance summary 8:15 – 8:30 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N um be r o f S eg m en ts Performance Summary of Different Mitigations 8:15 - 8:30 Significantly Better Slightly Better No Difference Slightly Worse Significantly Worse Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 235
|
From page 238... ...
Table 49. Average delay per link 8:30 – 8:45 Segment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EB TH at PEL-WYAN 802.7 4041.5 2418.1 3739.9 3621.0 2969.6 488.6 WB TH at PEL-WYAN 34.8 25.2 22.3 23.3 13.9 17.7 32.4 NB TH at PEL-WYAN 171.1 1346.5 2538.7 1008.8 2067.9 1720.2 585.6 EB TH at OUEL-WYAN 352.3 2241.2 772.0 1815.5 1810.7 1607.7 432.1 SB TH at OUEL-WYAN 31.3 17.1 187.2 102.9 20.7 18.0 50.9 WB TH at OUEL-WYAN 16.4 14.3 16.4 20.5 26.2 20.7 12.1 NB TH at OUEL-WYAN 187.7 761.9 657.1 1235.3 1037.0 1093.9 250.8 NB TH at OUEL-WYAN upstrem of LT bay 72.1 2254.1 1773.6 2281.9 1904.5 2198.4 565.5 NB LT at OUEL-WYAN 38.1 27.7 17.8 26.7 24.9 16.9 52.5 WB TH at GOY-WYAN 0.6 7.3 46.3 1.5 3.5 7.0 16.7 WB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 570.5 2594.0 963.0 1947.9 1776.6 2093.6 473.3 WB LT at GOY-WYAN 238.7 967.0 692.3 810.2 874.6 867.4 549.0 SB TH at GOY-WYAN 93.3 9.2 4.3 9.7 10.1 11.6 15.8 SB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 809.0 658.0 789.8 666.6 558.5 773.4 1184.9 SB LT at GOY-WYAN 311.1 4.0 6.5 6.5 6.8 8.8 0.0 Tunnel entrance RT lane 150.1 164.5 269.8 169.0 232.5 129.9 240.2 Tunnle entrance upstream from RT bay 3.8 10.2 45.7 8.5 25.5 16.9 7.0 Just past tunnel entrance on GOY 0.5 0.7 59.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.5 WB RT at GOY-WYAN 55.8 241.5 161.0 228.0 278.5 285.3 274.9 WB TH at GOY-WYAN 25.7 51.8 92.1 48.0 43.6 33.8 60.3 WB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 77.8 367.7 303.2 334.2 484.5 417.5 544.2 WB LT at GOY-WYAN 15.9 38.8 36.1 50.8 22.8 38.9 50.6 NB TH at GOY-WYAN 197.2 1297.2 1145.3 1146.9 1296.6 1112.4 1711.1 EB TH at WIND-WYAN 1.8 5.6 2.0 1.4 2.4 3.0 0.6 SB TH at WIND-WYAN 104.4 246.5 141.0 312.1 468.8 284.7 142.9 WB RT at WIND-WYAN 0.6 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.6 2.4 1.5 WB TH at WIND-WYAN 30.4 188.9 117.8 123.6 250.3 267.5 185.6 WB TH at WIND-WYAN upstream of RT bay 85.1 496.2 378.5 452.6 566.1 564.0 588.2 NB TH at WIND-WYAN 61.5 651.7 382.6 414.8 752.2 417.1 212.3 EB TH at MCD-WYAN 3.2 5.5 8.1 0.1 5.0 0.2 7.8 SB TH at MCD-WYAN 48.5 127.0 90.6 49.3 94.4 45.3 58.0 SB TH at MCD-WYAN upstream of RT bay 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.08 0.1 0.1 0.1 WB TH at MCD-WYAN 368.5 2390.3 1839.5 2204.7 2554.6 2573.1 3075.2 NB TH at MCD-WYAN 35.7 30.9 16.8 17.4 27.4 21.5 29.7 NB TH at MCD-WYAN upstream of LT bay 33.1 892.5 874.1 494.1 431.5 394.3 395.5 NB LT at MCD-WYAN 87.0 417.8 302.5 286.5 448.1 520.0 265.8 EB TH at GOY-TUC 417.5 263.0 1290.0 335.9 336.4 202.0 840.4 SB TH at GOY-TUC 32.3 19.3 14.9 21.0 17.8 29.0 13.5 WB TH at GOY-TUC 470.5 617.5 1066.0 1138.3 919.2 850.9 1549.8 NB TH at GOY-TUC 454.1 1237.6 1120.6 1125.8 1269.2 1160.6 1799.8 EB TH at GOY-PARK 63.9 56.6 56.7 55.2 51.3 52.5 54.3 EB TH at GOY-PARK upstream of LT bay 23.5 3.1 6.2 3.1 9.8 2.4 2.4 EB RT at GOY-PARK 73.4 82.4 86.7 80.5 110.0 105.6 100.1 SB TH at GOY-PARK 50.7 67.6 124.9 74.5 165.3 258.0 295.3 WB TH at GOY-PARK 5.58 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.3 2.5 NB TH at GOY-PARK 8.1 4.8 6.3 10.6 7.9 8.4 11.3 NB TH at OUEL-PARK 264.5 150.2 173.2 129.4 122.7 160.2 450.3 NB RT at OUEL-PARK 86.2 89.8 78.1 51.3 87.8 57.5 84.4 EB RT at OUEL-PARK 98.2 99.4 98.8 100.1 98.2 96.9 99.4 SB TH at OUEL-PARK 121.8 125.2 126.9 125.4 126.1 128.8 121.4 WB RT at OUEL-PARK 22.0 20.7 22.8 20.8 20.5 20.5 21.7 WB TH at OUEL-PARK 39.1 36.8 35.0 34.6 33.9 34.5 38.7 WB LT at OUEL-PARK 26.4 24.3 25.1 24.3 23.4 23.5 22.3 NB TH at OUEL-UNIV 24.9 42.9 51.9 46.3 42.2 47.2 21.2 NB TH at OUEL-UNIV upstream of LT bay 20.2 12.7 13.0 15.6 11.8 22.8 14.9 NB LT at OUEL-UNIV 17.0 47.6 43.9 51.7 49.6 49.3 32.5 EB TH at OUEL-UNIV 22.4 15.8 15.8 14.8 15.6 26.0 25.1 SB TH at OUEL-UNIV 47.8 55.9 61.5 58.8 53.6 55.2 49.7 SB TH at OUEL-UNIV upstream of LT bay 6.0 5.7 61.5 6.7 7.0 7.3 6.1 SB LT at OUEL-UNIV 55.9 69.8 78.7 77.2 60.7 81.2 68.5 EB TH at GOY-UNIV 41.3 16.3 84.3 43.2 10.6 52.1 117.9 SB TH at GOY-UNIV 130.5 100.7 102.0 185.7 218.9 288.8 312.0 WB TH at GOY-UNIV 47.2 46.5 76.0 37.8 21.4 65.8 35.8 NB TH at GOY-UNIV 17.0 16.8 15.3 13.6 17.7 58.6 11.2 To tunnel From WEST 2763.3 2012.9 4066.2 3673.6 4076.2 3143.5 2189.4 Through tunnel 3187.6 3221.9 3080.7 3136.4 3112.8 3119.6 3085.8 To tunnel from East 1750.8 1860.9 1000.5 1929.4 2707.0 1417.0 3072.1 To tunnel from South 577.4 2623.1 2685.4 2791.7 2755.7 2655.9 3614.7 Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 236
|
From page 239... ...
Figure 150. Performance summary 8:30 – 8:45 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N um be r o f S eg m en ts Performance Summary of Different Mitigations 8:30 - 8:45 Significantly Better Slightly Better No Difference Slightly Worse Significantly Worse Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 237
|
From page 240... ...
Table 50. Average delay per link 8:45 – 9:00 Segment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EB TH at PEL-WYAN 457.5 2375.9 2035.2 2647.2 2398.7 2408.4 390.1 WB TH at PEL-WYAN 42.8 26.0 34.7 20.4 22.9 25.4 37.9 NB TH at PEL-WYAN 147.4 1209.0 1474.9 983.1 1486.4 1585.8 496.3 EB TH at OUEL-WYAN 373.9 1209.7 917.5 1475.0 1219.7 1126.9 328.4 SB TH at OUEL-WYAN 37.0 20.4 18.8 21.7 49.6 23.7 45.0 WB TH at OUEL-WYAN 25.3 26.6 19.1 18.4 29.1 18.4 16.8 NB TH at OUEL-WYAN 184.4 703.4 409.7 932.6 642.8 841.2 166.4 NB TH at OUEL-WYAN upstrem of LT bay 18.6 1909.9 1117.3 2127.7 1853.7 2301.2 267.6 NB LT at OUEL-WYAN 48.2 16.9 46.5 29.4 30.3 13.9 49.0 WB TH at GOY-WYAN 26.6 16.3 166.6 21.4 1.7 4.0 4.1 WB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 562.9 1213.5 1099.6 1573.6 1296.9 1360.4 990.2 WB LT at GOY-WYAN 325.2 598.5 863.9 693.3 566.5 559.0 868.0 SB TH at GOY-WYAN 5.3 7.2 8.4 5.2 2.0 10.7 9.7 SB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 131.8 145.9 253.0 245.7 193.2 276.5 583.9 SB LT at GOY-WYAN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tunnel entrance RT lane 77.0 82.4 217.3 97.9 75.4 92.9 121.4 Tunnle entrance upstream from RT bay 4.3 5.4 54.7 8.0 8.8 9.8 9.6 Just past tunnel entrance on GOY 0.5 0.6 64.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 WB RT at GOY-WYAN 87.1 137.2 99.5 195.6 148.9 122.4 142.4 WB TH at GOY-WYAN 64.0 116.4 49.8 33.8 48.6 53.7 69.1 WB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 50.8 218.9 154.6 224.3 191.7 147.9 213.4 WB LT at GOY-WYAN 45.4 56.6 39.4 28.2 49.9 34.7 47.7 NB TH at GOY-WYAN 751.2 685.3 842.5 670.6 671.4 692.3 930.9 EB TH at WIND-WYAN 3.9 2.7 1.5 2.8 2.0 3.6 1.4 SB TH at WIND-WYAN 109.5 96.7 95.2 67.2 96.8 64.9 95.4 WB RT at WIND-WYAN 1.0 2.0 4.3 1.1 2.3 2.3 1.1 WB TH at WIND-WYAN 10.8 117.5 56.5 104.2 70.0 60.5 78.6 WB TH at WIND-WYAN upstream of RT bay 34.5 288.2 193.3 304.7 249.6 189.7 266.5 NB TH at WIND-WYAN 87.6 118.5 83.8 177.6 98.6 58.3 95.5 EB TH at MCD-WYAN 4.0 8.5 10.2 0.3 7.5 0.3 7.6 SB TH at MCD-WYAN 49.9 48.0 47.4 32.4 42.5 34.9 47.8 SB TH at MCD-WYAN upstream of RT bay 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 WB TH at MCD-WYAN 47.7 1419.7 1048.8 1561.9 1500.7 1288.8 1596.9 NB TH at MCD-WYAN 35.9 27.4 30.5 28.1 30.4 30.2 31.6 NB TH at MCD-WYAN upstream of LT bay 45.8 194.0 145.5 103.8 141.8 70.4 84.1 NB LT at MCD-WYAN 92.8 165.3 79.9 143.9 107.2 61.3 112.7 EB TH at GOY-TUC 736.4 81.1 855.2 63.7 76.8 61.7 169.5 SB TH at GOY-TUC 26.2 24.0 17.9 18.7 16.9 27.2 17.5 WB TH at GOY-TUC 808.0 271.5 743.2 390.5 263.3 359.7 560.9 NB TH at GOY-TUC 865.9 630.2 791.4 569.3 529.7 571.0 846.2 EB TH at GOY-PARK 54.8 54.4 61.0 54.3 54.3 54.3 50.4 EB TH at GOY-PARK upstream of LT bay 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 7.8 EB RT at GOY-PARK 67.8 69.5 69.6 71.7 69.5 69.5 78.8 SB TH at GOY-PARK 15.1 14.2 14.0 16.4 18.3 27.2 97.5 WB TH at GOY-PARK 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 11.6 NB TH at GOY-PARK 8.3 8.4 10.4 9.1 9.2 10.4 10.8 NB TH at OUEL-PARK 162.3 167.7 285.7 159.4 157.8 217.4 361.8 NB RT at OUEL-PARK 91.1 82.0 122.4 106.7 83.3 98.2 99.8 EB RT at OUEL-PARK 91.5 91.2 89.7 92.0 95.9 89.6 92.8 SB TH at OUEL-PARK 120.9 122.7 120.4 120.1 118.2 124.3 121.2 WB RT at OUEL-PARK 31.0 29.5 31.2 29.4 29.7 31.4 31.7 WB TH at OUEL-PARK 40.5 38.9 41.2 39.7 39.4 39.6 40.3 WB LT at OUEL-PARK 34.4 33.1 35.3 33.6 34.1 34.3 34.7 NB TH at OUEL-UNIV 32.9 39.9 23.0 39.5 35.6 33.6 31.1 NB TH at OUEL-UNIV upstream of LT bay 12.8 12.4 12.5 13.1 15.1 13.9 43.9 NB LT at OUEL-UNIV 33.5 37.6 23.7 36.2 32.8 39.5 35.7 EB TH at OUEL-UNIV 18.8 18.9 21.9 17.8 18.7 19.7 28.8 SB TH at OUEL-UNIV 58.3 59.5 54.3 56.4 57.5 55.5 55.2 SB TH at OUEL-UNIV upstream of LT bay 5.0 9.1 54.3 6.6 5.7 5.5 6.4 SB LT at OUEL-UNIV 68.4 80.3 76.6 57.4 64.5 80.8 60.7 EB TH at GOY-UNIV 6.2 6.9 6.3 6.5 6.9 7.7 83.2 SB TH at GOY-UNIV 70.2 69.8 73.8 70.8 72.9 84.7 220.8 WB TH at GOY-UNIV 9.3 9.5 15.8 9.7 10.0 11.8 21.7 NB TH at GOY-UNIV 22.9 26.2 20.4 22.7 24.6 22.8 18.0 To tunnel From WEST 2106.1 2495.1 2554.4 2570.4 3476.6 3593.5 2533.4 Through tunnel 2762.0 2744.5 2746.1 2787.8 2706.4 2829.7 2777.7 To tunnel from East 926.4 2280.9 1839.2 1882.3 2472.8 2174.5 2165.1 To tunnel from South 1740.1 1741.0 2121.9 1709.2 1845.2 1877.7 2325.9 Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 238
|
From page 241... ...
Figure 151. Performance summary 8:45 – 9:00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N um be r o f S eg m en ts Performance Summary of Different Mitigations 8:45 - 9:00 Significantly Better Slightly Better No Difference Slightly Worse Significantly Worse Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 239
|
From page 242... ...
Table 51. Average delay per link 9:00 – 9:15 Segment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EB TH at PEL-WYAN 91.0 551.9 784.8 639.1 704.9 723.5 402.5 WB TH at PEL-WYAN 14.5 32.9 33.1 27.5 27.0 24.4 15.6 NB TH at PEL-WYAN 87.7 375.8 481.0 297.4 695.5 590.5 114.3 EB TH at OUEL-WYAN 78.4 339.2 512.6 377.1 460.8 413.4 297.7 SB TH at OUEL-WYAN 30.9 24.9 18.1 18.7 13.8 13.8 25.6 WB TH at OUEL-WYAN 13.8 22.1 16.6 9.0 19.4 13.7 11.7 NB TH at OUEL-WYAN 63.0 236.4 419.5 319.6 248.2 249.7 184.0 NB TH at OUEL-WYAN upstrem of LT bay 0.4 337.4 670.7 576.0 452.4 559.5 138.7 NB LT at OUEL-WYAN 51.2 63.9 50.9 33.7 30.5 38.0 35.4 WB TH at GOY-WYAN 15.8 6.9 46.9 4.4 4.0 1.4 3.2 WB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 145.2 327.6 651.6 407.8 522.2 463.5 573.8 WB LT at GOY-WYAN 153.8 190.2 372.0 186.3 261.5 241.9 372.4 SB TH at GOY-WYAN 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.3 1.3 1.8 1.4 SB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 3.5 0.0 SB LT at GOY-WYAN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tunnel entrance RT lane 31.2 37.1 70.9 34.2 40.3 37.8 58.0 Tunnle entrance upstream from RT bay 3.8 2.8 11.1 3.8 5.8 3.2 4.0 Just past tunnel entrance on GOY 0.5 0.5 13.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 WB RT at GOY-WYAN 21.0 54.5 32.7 45.6 58.9 50.2 77.5 WB TH at GOY-WYAN 32.4 42.5 27.7 18.7 33.5 19.7 42.8 WB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 5.0 65.8 47.4 40.2 42.1 40.7 112.9 WB LT at GOY-WYAN 26.2 44.0 40.9 17.2 27.1 28.9 30.4 NB TH at GOY-WYAN 159.8 209.5 324.3 208.7 301.5 238.3 356.9 EB TH at WIND-WYAN 1.1 0.9 1.3 1.7 0.8 2.3 0.8 SB TH at WIND-WYAN 89.8 96.8 89.6 62.2 96.9 62.1 89.6 WB RT at WIND-WYAN 0.5 0.6 0.7 5.1 3.1 5.5 0.4 WB TH at WIND-WYAN 3.0 20.4 14.3 36.1 19.9 29.6 52.1 WB TH at WIND-WYAN upstream of RT bay 0.6 58.6 35.4 83.5 37.8 57.1 126.1 NB TH at WIND-WYAN 91.3 77.9 99.4 70.8 77.8 58.9 100.9 EB TH at MCD-WYAN 1.0 1.8 1.6 0.2 2.0 0.2 1.0 SB TH at MCD-WYAN 54.6 52.4 56.6 34.7 58.5 34.9 51.5 SB TH at MCD-WYAN upstream of RT bay 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WB TH at MCD-WYAN 7.8 275.8 165.8 362.6 197.5 357.1 420.2 NB TH at MCD-WYAN 54.7 44.7 58.2 34.0 42.3 34.7 44.0 NB TH at MCD-WYAN upstream of LT bay 9.7 14.3 11.6 7.3 14.9 5.2 12.3 NB LT at MCD-WYAN 63.1 44.7 64.2 51.9 40.7 64.9 53.1 EB TH at GOY-TUC 93.5 73.1 120.6 51.6 72.7 52.0 71.7 SB TH at GOY-TUC 20.6 12.7 11.9 17.3 12.7 19.1 14.1 WB TH at GOY-TUC 91.2 82.5 110.7 55.4 73.9 41.1 152.2 NB TH at GOY-TUC 66.1 45.7 106.6 63.5 58.0 65.1 179.9 EB TH at GOY-PARK 49.5 51.4 74.4 51.4 51.4 51.4 51.4 EB TH at GOY-PARK upstream of LT bay 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 EB RT at GOY-PARK 63.4 62.9 62.9 62.9 62.9 62.9 62.9 SB TH at GOY-PARK 8.9 7.4 8.9 7.6 7.7 6.9 8.4 WB TH at GOY-PARK 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 NB TH at GOY-PARK 4.2 4.3 4.7 4.9 5.4 6.3 4.6 NB TH at OUEL-PARK 100.2 330.4 225.0 212.2 216.0 258.5 187.3 NB RT at OUEL-PARK 51.8 82.9 72.3 84.2 76.3 82.8 68.7 EB RT at OUEL-PARK 114.0 112.1 113.7 110.0 112.3 118.6 113.7 SB TH at OUEL-PARK 120.6 112.6 113.5 116.4 115.7 120.2 119.2 WB RT at OUEL-PARK 20.6 24.5 24.8 25.4 24.8 27.4 23.0 WB TH at OUEL-PARK 4.2 5.4 6.7 6.1 6.8 5.4 6.4 WB LT at OUEL-PARK 24.6 31.2 28.9 29.7 30.5 29.1 28.2 NB TH at OUEL-UNIV 36.7 11.6 18.8 21.1 15.3 18.3 23.2 NB TH at OUEL-UNIV upstream of LT bay 6.2 10.1 9.6 9.1 10.5 10.7 8.3 NB LT at OUEL-UNIV 24.0 20.2 14.0 15.0 14.6 16.1 15.9 EB TH at OUEL-UNIV 13.2 16.9 15.4 16.8 16.1 19.5 14.4 SB TH at OUEL-UNIV 71.1 52.3 72.1 62.7 54.6 54.4 66.4 SB TH at OUEL-UNIV upstream of LT bay 2.4 2.1 72.1 2.4 2.0 2.1 2.4 SB LT at OUEL-UNIV 40.2 36.2 42.3 41.7 26.9 36.8 41.0 EB TH at GOY-UNIV 3.4 2.2 1.2 2.0 2.5 3.4 3.1 SB TH at GOY-UNIV 67.6 67.5 67.1 67.6 67.6 67.8 66.3 WB TH at GOY-UNIV 6.9 7.0 13.2 7.0 7.2 7.1 7.1 NB TH at GOY-UNIV 24.3 32.3 32.4 32.3 32.3 32.4 32.3 To tunnel From WEST 578.5 862.7 999.1 998.7 1474.0 1254.6 1253.4 Through tunnel 2321.5 2428.4 2201.5 2367.1 2488.4 2406.5 2395.1 To tunnel from East 292.9 611.1 549.7 322.8 439.8 676.0 801.6 To tunnel from South 463.2 593.2 802.0 556.6 682.8 604.2 806.8 Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 240
|
From page 243... ...
Figure 152. Performance summary 9:00 – 9:15 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N um be r o f S eg m en ts Performance Summary of Different Mitigations 9:00 - 9:15 Significantly Better Slightly Better No Difference Slightly Worse Significantly Worse Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 241
|
From page 244... ...
Table 52. Average delay per link 9:15 – 9:30 Segment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EB TH at PEL-WYAN 14.6 13.6 10.8 13.8 37.0 28.8 13.6 WB TH at PEL-WYAN 9.4 20.1 13.3 13.9 14.6 7.8 17.3 NB TH at PEL-WYAN 57.2 63.2 157.9 65.7 71.4 55.6 60.1 EB TH at OUEL-WYAN 10.5 9.8 13.8 12.3 49.9 18.7 12.3 SB TH at OUEL-WYAN 29.6 31.5 22.0 30.1 10.8 28.8 27.9 WB TH at OUEL-WYAN 5.1 1.5 6.3 3.3 22.1 0.8 5.9 NB TH at OUEL-WYAN 62.9 55.0 47.9 67.2 31.6 68.3 69.6 NB TH at OUEL-WYAN upstrem of LT bay 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 NB LT at OUEL-WYAN 51.3 61.3 37.0 35.4 25.1 42.7 44.8 WB TH at GOY-WYAN 5.4 2.2 58.6 5.1 5.5 5.8 3.4 WB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 0.4 0.3 13.3 12.0 23.8 13.6 10.7 WB LT at GOY-WYAN 90.1 96.7 66.4 90.5 55.2 70.2 94.0 SB TH at GOY-WYAN 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SB LT at GOY-WYAN 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tunnel entrance RT lane 3.3 0.6 8.3 1.6 4.4 1.2 1.2 Tunnle entrance upstream from RT bay 1.2 0.2 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 Just past tunnel entrance on GOY 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 WB RT at GOY-WYAN 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.4 9.7 4.0 2.8 WB TH at GOY-WYAN 7.1 8.2 10.4 1.8 5.8 2.6 4.5 WB TH at GOY-WYAN upstream of LT bay 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 WB LT at GOY-WYAN 7.6 8.4 5.2 5.7 6.6 9.2 3.8 NB TH at GOY-WYAN 95.3 104.1 90.2 86.5 91.8 88.0 99.4 EB TH at WIND-WYAN 1.4 1.1 1.4 3.6 2.5 9.7 1.2 SB TH at WIND-WYAN 78.6 78.6 78.6 56.6 78.7 56.6 78.6 WB RT at WIND-WYAN 1.4 0.7 2.6 0.6 0.7 2.3 1.3 WB TH at WIND-WYAN 3.5 3.3 2.9 28.0 4.4 27.3 3.5 WB TH at WIND-WYAN upstream of RT bay 0.5 0.5 0.5 3.8 0.7 4.0 0.6 NB TH at WIND-WYAN 68.6 68.6 68.6 45.5 68.6 45.5 68.6 EB TH at MCD-WYAN 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 SB TH at MCD-WYAN 48.4 48.7 44.0 30.9 48.3 28.8 46.5 SB TH at MCD-WYAN upstream of RT bay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 WB TH at MCD-WYAN 8.1 8.2 7.8 16.4 8.1 16.5 8.3 NB TH at MCD-WYAN 49.9 47.2 56.7 21.5 52.7 23.1 46.3 NB TH at MCD-WYAN upstream of LT bay 13.6 10.8 11.1 6.9 11.8 6.9 10.1 NB LT at MCD-WYAN 45.6 47.2 65.5 18.5 55.3 12.4 51.8 EB TH at GOY-TUC 62.6 85.2 77.1 30.9 84.8 30.2 87.1 SB TH at GOY-TUC 6.0 5.7 3.2 8.9 7.7 7.4 4.7 WB TH at GOY-TUC 45.7 55.6 57.0 46.1 55.6 45.0 47.8 NB TH at GOY-TUC 3.9 4.0 3.5 19.3 3.9 19.3 3.8 EB TH at GOY-PARK 69.3 57.7 60.5 57.7 57.7 57.7 57.7 EB TH at GOY-PARK upstream of LT bay 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 EB RT at GOY-PARK 73.7 84.2 84.3 84.2 84.2 84.2 84.2 SB TH at GOY-PARK 8.3 9.4 9.0 8.6 8.1 7.8 8.4 WB TH at GOY-PARK 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 NB TH at GOY-PARK 2.6 2.7 2.8 6.3 3.9 4.9 2.7 NB TH at OUEL-PARK 99.6 101.7 88.6 88.3 67.2 90.9 88.4 NB RT at OUEL-PARK 64.4 46.5 54.5 32.6 54.3 60.9 73.8 EB RT at OUEL-PARK 109.0 112.4 115.2 117.3 111.8 115.2 115.4 SB TH at OUEL-PARK 132.6 132.5 135.5 135.2 134.9 131.9 136.5 WB RT at OUEL-PARK 11.7 13.0 10.6 13.1 14.1 12.7 13.5 WB TH at OUEL-PARK 11.7 11.9 11.2 11.1 11.6 10.7 11.5 WB LT at OUEL-PARK 15.3 12.6 12.9 12.1 16.0 12.7 12.9 NB TH at OUEL-UNIV 33.9 42.3 32.3 29.6 27.2 29.7 33.8 NB TH at OUEL-UNIV upstream of LT bay 2.5 3.1 4.6 3.7 3.3 4.5 3.4 NB LT at OUEL-UNIV 18.4 30.5 25.8 18.1 19.9 40.3 15.2 EB TH at OUEL-UNIV 10.8 11.0 11.3 9.9 12.4 11.5 9.7 SB TH at OUEL-UNIV 64.8 64.2 64.4 69.8 70.1 67.6 73.4 SB TH at OUEL-UNIV upstream of LT bay 2.4 2.5 64.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 SB LT at OUEL-UNIV 21.3 20.9 22.3 21.3 21.4 21.4 21.4 EB TH at GOY-UNIV 6.5 3.8 4.6 4.9 3.6 3.1 5.5 SB TH at GOY-UNIV 69.9 69.7 71.8 70.7 69.7 69.9 69.1 WB TH at GOY-UNIV 3.8 3.9 12.3 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 NB TH at GOY-UNIV 11.2 11.5 6.1 11.6 11.6 11.5 11.6 To tunnel From WEST 216.5 178.8 257.9 195.3 215.1 194.4 149.5 Through tunnel 347.8 109.8 84.9 348.4 220.6 125.9 84.2 To tunnel from East 76.3 88.9 66.7 118.8 87.9 104.3 60.2 To tunnel from South 173.3 198.8 193.8 196.3 194.2 194.0 183.0 Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 242
|
From page 245... ...
Figure 153. Performance summary 9:15 – 9:30 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N um be r o f S eg m en ts Performance Summary of Different Mitigations 9:15 - 9:30 Significantly Better Slightly Better No Difference Slightly Worse Significantly Worse Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 243
|
From page 246... ...
Table 53. Average delay per link total (3 hours)
|
From page 247... ...
Figure 154. Performance summary total (3 hours)
|
From page 248... ...
As shown in the figure, each mitigation strategy resulted in very similar input rates. Most, but not all, mitigations are able to slightly outperform doing no mitigation at all.
|
From page 249... ...
Figure 156. Average output rates under different mitigations The average number of vehicles in the system was calculated using the input and output data shown above.
|
From page 250... ...
appears to result in the highest number of vehicles in the system while still recovering in a time consistent with the no mitigation scenario. Performance improvements for total average delay and throughput do not support that the dynamic left-turn strategy is particularly effective.
|
From page 251... ...
Test Case: Arterial with Special Event Traffic This real-world test case concerns a heavily traveled arterial that becomes significantly oversaturated on several critical routes. This oversaturation happens intermittently during A.M.
|
From page 252... ...
The current signal coordination timing during P.M. peak period consists of a 130s cycle length and offsets which favor forward progression in the westbound direction.
|
From page 253... ...
Bullard. What is typically a four and a half minute trip along the three mile segment becomes more than 15 minutes; with more than 12 of those minutes spent in queues between Litchfield and Bullard.
|
From page 254... ...
This scenario is definitely a two-way arterial problem with several significant critical routes. The queuing lasts for at least an hour and a half as game attendees typically arrive approximately an hour ahead of the first pitch and continue arriving approximately 15 minutes after that.
|
From page 255... ...
Figure 163. Queue dissipation as the event traffic flows subside This condition is caused by three major factors (a)
|
From page 256... ...
Figure 164. Traffic arrival volumes and turning percentage profile during game traffic As shown, in addition to the ramp-up and ramp-down of the arrival volumes, the route proportions at Bell and Bullard in the westbound direction were adjusted in the following manner to represent the change in the mix of game and through traffic destinations.
|
From page 257... ...
Notice that until the game traffic begins to arrive (approximately one hour or 3600s into the simulation) the traffic condition is relatively stable.
|
From page 258... ...
Table 55. Mitigation strategies evaluated in this test case Mitigation Strategy Description Extreme Left-Turn Split at Bullard WB Left-Turn was significantly increased to address the queue causing blocking.
|
From page 259... ...
Figure 166. Illustration of dynamic lane allocation for two-lane left-turn movement Average Delay Analysis The results for the average delay analysis are presented in table format per system link for each half hour of the simulation and are color coded to illustrate the degree of the impact on average delay.
|
From page 260... ...
The results of the average delay comparison indicated that each mitigation strategy reduces delay on links on the east end of the system while increasing delay on links located on the west end of the system. Table 56.
|
From page 261... ...
Figure 167. Performance summary 4:30 – 5:00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N um be r o f S eg m en ts Performance Summary of Different Mitigations 4:30 PM to 5:00 PM Significantly Better Slightly Better No Difference Slightly Worse Significantly Worse Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 259
|
From page 262... ...
Table 57. Average delay per link 5:00 – 5:30 Segment 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EB TH at Reems-Bell 23.1 22.6 23.3 27.6 23.0 22.0 22.3 23.9 EB TH at Reems-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 3.2 2.9 3.0 4.9 3.4 2.9 3.0 2.9 NB RT at Reems-Bell 15.9 16.1 16.5 41.6 22.2 13.3 13.8 15.7 NB TH at Reems-Bell Upstream of RT Bay 12.2 8.5 9.0 19.2 16.1 9.0 11.5 5.0 SB LT at Reems-Bell 54.2 54.0 54.4 54.1 59.7 54.6 54.6 34.0 SB TH at Reems-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 27.4 33.3 33.6 31.1 49.2 36.0 33.3 4.1 EB TH at Parkview-Bell 17.3 17.2 24.1 29.8 25.4 21.2 22.6 22.0 EB TH at Parkview-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 67.4 71.7 74.6 115.9 82.2 59.6 66.4 75.1 NB RT at Parkview-Bell 5.4 5.3 6.2 5.3 5.5 7.4 6.1 5.5 NB TH at Parkview-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 SB LT at Parkview-Bell 59.6 52.3 54.3 62.5 60.9 50.6 52.5 24.8 SB TH at Parkview-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 41.4 19.3 26.1 41.6 55.4 21.5 18.8 1.9 EB TH at Bullard-Bell 18.4 42.3 23.8 25.2 30.3 13.0 12.9 13.8 EB RT at Bullard-Bell 22.7 23.7 23.3 29.6 26.7 18.5 21.2 22.4 EB TH at Bullard-Bell Upstream of RT Bay 40.1 40.3 40.9 61.1 47.9 30.5 35.5 41.2 WB LT at Bullard-Bell 19.9 16.5 18.2 16.1 14.6 25.7 25.4 21.9 WB TH at Bullard-Bell 2.3 2.1 2.9 3.0 3.1 2.9 3.0 3.0 WB TH at Bullard-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 104.0 86.0 93.9 94.8 72.4 183.4 99.2 80.8 NB LT at Sun Village-Bell 164.8 70.5 145.6 130.2 153.2 134.1 118.5 49.4 NB TH at Sun VillageBell Upstream of LT Bay 5.0 1.5 7.6 2.0 5.2 13.7 2.1 1.5 WB TH at Sun Village-Bell 13.0 13.1 13.5 13.2 11.0 25.5 16.4 14.5 WB TH at Sun VillageBell Upstream of LT Bay 71.5 67.9 71.6 67.4 59.5 127.7 99.0 62.3 SB TH/RT at Sun VillageBell 3.8 4.3 2.7 2.3 3.9 2.7 2.8 3.3 SB TH at Sun Village-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 NB LT at Litchfield-Bell 112.1 90.8 140.1 102.3 144.3 187.6 178.5 80.5 NB TH at Litchfield-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 18.2 7.3 41.2 10.8 39.2 111.8 94.6 6.6 WB TH at Litchfield-Bell 30.0 28.0 29.6 28.8 25.9 38.2 35.4 35.9 WB TH at Litchfield-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 181.9 171.8 177.6 169.9 165.6 212.3 229.6 229.6 SB TH at Litchfield-Bell 68.0 70.3 74.8 80.4 80.2 78.4 79.7 38.7 SB TH at Litchfield-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 13.3 16.1 22.5 18.7 18.8 27.1 22.5 1.8 Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 260
|
From page 263... ...
Figure 168. Performance summary 5:00 – 5:30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N um be r o f S eg m en ts Performance Summary of Different Mitigations 5:00 PM to 5:30 PM Significantly Better Slightly Better No Difference Slightly Worse Significantly Worse Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 261
|
From page 264... ...
Table 58. Average delay per link 5:30 – 6:00 Segment 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EB TH at Reems-Bell 50.3 50.4 49.9 83.1 63.5 32.3 43.5 64.6 EB TH at Reems-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 42.7 38.2 37.1 167.3 78.8 6.4 23.4 72.6 NB RT at Reems-Bell 129.3 196.9 277.5 307.4 288.0 98.3 216.3 223.4 NB TH at Reems-Bell Upstream of RT Bay 137.3 203.4 224.1 417.9 326.8 74.0 117.7 136.6 SB LT at Reems-Bell 59.5 54.0 52.6 71.1 57.0 55.1 55.9 42.3 SB TH at Reems-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 109.6 87.1 116.6 120.1 146.5 135.2 129.0 11.2 EB TH at Parkview-Bell 41.3 40.3 40.0 63.9 49.8 29.3 35.7 45.2 EB TH at Parkview-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 366.0 359.0 352.5 586.6 445.9 229.6 301.4 412.8 NB RT at Parkview-Bell 5.6 5.1 6.1 5.8 6.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 NB TH at Parkview-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 0.5 1.6 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.4 SB LT at Parkview-Bell 67.3 61.6 69.1 87.5 83.9 51.7 64.8 29.0 SB TH at Parkview-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 41.4 30.5 44.5 118.1 108.7 13.6 34.4 2.1 EB TH at Bullard-Bell 29.4 33.6 28.2 23.6 38.8 12.6 13.6 16.5 EB RT at Bullard-Bell 23.6 23.9 24.2 29.7 26.6 19.4 23.4 23.9 EB TH at Bullard-Bell Upstream of RT Bay 118.6 116.1 116.4 186.6 148.9 73.1 103.8 122.0 WB LT at Bullard-Bell 16.7 16.3 17.2 14.7 13.6 28.1 24.6 18.9 WB TH at Bullard-Bell 3.0 3.3 2.6 3.5 2.7 2.1 2.7 3.7 WB TH at Bullard-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 276.5 259.0 260.5 239.4 208.0 442.5 164.3 279.3 NB LT at Sun Village-Bell 355.2 194.4 295.3 255.4 361.0 177.2 179.7 135.2 NB TH at Sun VillageBell Upstream of LT Bay 215.7 25.8 114.9 66.3 199.4 69.5 13.5 8.5 WB TH at Sun Village-Bell 34.6 33.1 32.3 28.2 23.8 60.3 21.3 33.9 WB TH at Sun VillageBell Upstream of LT Bay 230.9 213.6 208.4 190.8 166.5 425.0 167.7 210.4 SB TH/RT at Sun VillageBell 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SB TH at Sun Village-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.8 NB LT at Litchfield-Bell 298.0 205.0 263.9 221.0 291.4 403.7 255.1 189.6 NB TH at Litchfield-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 426.3 220.2 508.0 302.3 505.6 763.0 628.0 224.7 WB TH at Litchfield-Bell 53.1 51.0 52.2 48.2 40.1 76.0 48.1 57.9 WB TH at Litchfield-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 364.2 339.1 352.4 333.7 281.8 497.2 401.5 394.0 SB TH at Litchfield-Bell 82.6 93.7 103.1 92.7 96.0 115.9 94.8 37.3 SB TH at Litchfield-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 35.6 58.6 111.8 30.1 28.9 109.1 38.1 1.8 Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 262
|
From page 265... ...
Figure 169. Performance Summary 5:30 – 6:00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N um be r o f S eg m en ts Performance Summary of Different Mitigations 5:30 PM to 6:00 PM Significantly Better Slightly Better No Difference Slightly Worse Significantly Worse Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 263
|
From page 266... ...
Table 59. Average delay per link 6:00 – 6:30 Segment 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EB TH at Reems-Bell 89.3 80.9 93.3 116.6 99.8 29.9 73.7 85.6 EB TH at Reems-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 297.4 239.0 247.4 739.4 517.8 2.6 113.0 408.5 NB RT at Reems-Bell 601.2 569.3 651.0 792.2 672.6 218.5 426.9 597.7 NB TH at Reems-Bell Upstream of RT Bay 999.2 1194.8 1213.2 1510.3 1346.3 390.9 953.3 1043.4 SB LT at Reems-Bell 66.0 65.9 60.4 81.5 72.3 40.5 51.9 51.3 SB TH at Reems-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 111.4 83.1 81.9 353.1 210.9 44.2 66.8 33.2 EB TH at Parkview-Bell 48.0 46.3 51.4 71.4 56.8 29.5 43.7 49.0 EB TH at Parkview-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 745.9 714.9 761.6 1038.0 839.9 424.0 652.3 738.8 NB RT at Parkview-Bell 4.2 3.8 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.9 4.4 3.8 NB TH at Parkview-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 0.2 3.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.3 SB LT at Parkview-Bell 72.9 76.1 80.7 99.5 76.7 51.8 72.2 29.9 SB TH at Parkview-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 38.4 43.8 112.5 228.3 140.0 7.6 76.9 1.4 EB TH at Bullard-Bell 27.5 31.1 30.6 24.5 43.5 13.6 16.0 16.6 EB RT at Bullard-Bell 24.0 23.9 23.8 29.6 27.5 19.3 24.0 24.0 EB TH at Bullard-Bell Upstream of RT Bay 133.3 139.7 151.6 199.1 165.2 87.0 126.3 133.6 WB LT at Bullard-Bell 16.3 15.3 15.9 14.6 13.1 26.2 19.5 17.8 WB TH at Bullard-Bell 2.1 2.3 2.3 3.6 2.8 2.2 2.5 2.8 WB TH at Bullard-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 166.7 168.7 174.3 168.6 150.8 312.4 119.4 189.6 NB LT at Sun Village-Bell 316.6 131.5 272.9 222.3 315.8 125.6 102.0 63.1 NB TH at Sun VillageBell Upstream of LT Bay 219.8 2.3 105.6 53.7 350.2 22.2 1.6 1.4 WB TH at Sun Village-Bell 19.4 20.5 21.1 20.7 18.2 40.1 15.7 21.6 WB TH at Sun VillageBell Upstream of LT Bay 164.6 169.7 165.5 163.9 140.7 372.8 133.9 175.9 SB TH/RT at Sun VillageBell 6.2 4.7 6.7 6.1 9.6 6.6 6.6 3.4 SB TH at Sun Village-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.8 NB LT at Litchfield-Bell 210.1 162.1 233.5 185.3 235.6 355.4 221.9 169.4 NB TH at Litchfield-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 729.9 473.7 810.6 600.3 839.9 1058.8 788.1 520.7 WB TH at Litchfield-Bell 37.4 37.6 38.0 38.9 33.1 68.2 37.9 46.7 WB TH at Litchfield-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 271.1 273.4 273.1 281.7 220.5 569.4 306.0 340.5 SB TH at Litchfield-Bell 62.8 80.7 77.2 52.5 58.8 93.3 69.8 33.0 SB TH at Litchfield-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 31.7 65.8 165.0 1.3 2.5 182.1 42.1 0.8 Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 264
|
From page 267... ...
Figure 170. Performance summary 6:00 – 6:30 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N um be r o f S eg m en ts Performance Summary of Different Mitigations 6:00 PM to 6:30 PM Significantly Better Slightly Better No Difference Slightly Worse Significantly Worse Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 265
|
From page 268... ...
Table 60. Average delay per link 6:30 – 7:00 Segment 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 EB TH at Reems-Bell 26.8 23.4 26.1 52.7 39.3 19.5 20.5 27.8 EB TH at Reems-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 21.8 2.6 19.5 581.7 192.0 0.5 0.9 42.3 NB RT at Reems-Bell 73.2 34.1 56.1 386.1 153.1 7.1 17.8 82.6 NB TH at Reems-Bell Upstream of RT Bay 652.1 591.4 597.7 1822.7 1122.1 2.2 279.9 733.4 SB LT at Reems-Bell 39.7 40.8 39.3 44.2 45.4 39.4 40.5 25.5 SB TH at Reems-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 3.9 1.6 1.8 43.5 2.8 0.6 0.7 0.5 EB TH at Parkview-Bell 13.6 13.1 15.5 23.3 17.2 12.4 13.2 20.7 EB TH at Parkview-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 273.7 269.4 280.9 545.0 366.2 57.1 192.9 316.0 NB RT at Parkview-Bell 3.3 4.2 3.8 4.6 3.7 4.3 3.6 3.1 NB TH at Parkview-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 SB LT at Parkview-Bell 39.3 35.5 35.4 35.1 40.9 32.6 34.4 23.2 SB TH at Parkview-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 3.6 0.6 0.8 1.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 EB TH at Bullard-Bell 9.9 11.9 9.9 8.6 5.4 10.8 6.3 7.7 EB RT at Bullard-Bell 12.7 11.8 12.8 17.8 12.6 9.2 11.2 15.3 EB TH at Bullard-Bell Upstream of RT Bay 26.0 29.0 27.7 52.4 31.4 8.7 17.8 28.6 WB LT at Bullard-Bell 11.3 7.5 11.1 12.5 12.4 15.4 12.4 13.3 WB TH at Bullard-Bell 1.0 1.0 2.4 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.3 4.0 WB TH at Bullard-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 13.9 12.2 14.4 8.3 3.8 79.4 8.4 23.2 NB LT at Sun Village-Bell 62.2 43.4 73.9 51.4 54.5 62.5 53.0 36.8 NB TH at Sun VillageBell Upstream of LT Bay 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 8.7 1.3 1.2 1.2 WB TH at Sun Village-Bell 1.7 5.2 2.0 1.6 0.9 8.0 1.3 6.4 WB TH at Sun VillageBell Upstream of LT Bay 8.8 11.0 6.4 2.3 1.0 73.5 1.2 11.1 SB TH/RT at Sun VillageBell 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SB TH at Sun Village-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.8 NB LT at Litchfield-Bell 63.2 62.7 64.0 66.1 66.1 105.9 68.9 44.2 NB TH at Litchfield-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 23.5 2.0 15.6 4.2 11.7 281.3 11.5 1.3 WB TH at Litchfield-Bell 18.7 18.6 17.8 18.7 17.4 22.6 18.1 20.5 WB TH at Litchfield-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 5.7 3.3 6.1 7.0 3.2 115.5 4.0 17.0 SB TH at Litchfield-Bell 42.0 43.7 61.1 40.9 42.3 66.0 44.8 24.3 SB TH at Litchfield-Bell Upstream of LT Bay 0.6 3.0 72.7 0.6 0.6 127.5 0.6 0.5 Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 266
|
From page 269... ...
Figure 171. Performance summary 6:30 – 7:00 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 N um be r o f S eg m en ts Performance Summary of Different Mitigations 6:30 PM to 7:00 PM Significantly Better Slightly Better No Difference Slightly Worse Significantly Worse Operation of traffic signal systems in oversaturated conditions Page 267
|
From page 270... ...
Table 61. Average delay per link (3 hour total)
|
From page 271... ...
Figure 172. Performance summary (3 hour total)
|
From page 272... ...
Table 62. Average delay comparison with extended left turn at Bullard (3 hour total)
|
From page 273... ...
Figure 173. Performance summary comparison to extended left-turn split at Bullard (3 hour total)
|
From page 274... ...
Figure 174. Average input rates under different mitigations 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 30 0 60 0 90 0 12 00 15 00 18 00 21 00 24 00 27 00 30 00 33 00 36 00 39 00 42 00 45 00 48 00 51 00 54 00 57 00 60 00 63 00 66 00 69 00 72 00 75 00 78 00 81 00 84 00 87 00 90 00 93 00 96 00 99 00 10 20 0 10 50 0 10 80 0 11 10 0 11 40 0 11 70 0 N um be r o f V eh icl es Time (Seconds)
|
From page 275... ...
Similarly, the network output graph shown in Figure 175 illustrates that each mitigation strategy improves the baseline condition. The greatest impact of the mitigation strategies can be seen during the "recover" portion of the curve which occurs after the peak hour at approximately 7800s into the simulation.
|
From page 276... ...
The average number of vehicles in the system was calculated using the input and output data shown above. Figure 176 shows the resulting number of vehicles in the system for each strategy.
|
From page 277... ...
Determining the ‘best' strategy from this presentation of data depends on the desired outcome of the strategy. For example, if the objective is to reduce the number of vehicles ‘stuck' in the system, one would choose a strategy which results in a data line which falls below the baseline.
|
From page 278... ...
Figure 178. Travel time comparison to Bullard from eastbound and westbound directions Summary In this test case, we applied the guidance process to a real-world situation with event traffic overlaid on normal heavy P.M.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.